Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analyses of Selective Internal Radiation Therapy versus Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab from a German Statutory Health Insurance Perspective.

Purpose: To compare personalized dosimetry with yttrium-90 (90Y)-loaded glass microspheres (SIRT) vs atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A+B) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment in terms of cost-effectiveness and budget impact from a German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective. Patients and Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA) models were developed in MS Excel. The available key studies (IMbrave150 and DOSISPHERE-01) suggest that both strategies are comparable in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival in HCC, but a difference in severe adverse events (SAE) in favor of SIRT was observed. Accordingly, the CEA model investigates the endpoints "cost per SAE avoided" and "cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained", whereas the BIA simulates the impact of a stepwise re-allocation of current market share to the option which emerges as more cost-effective from the CEA. Results: The model suite estimated a mean annual total per-patient costs of € 29,984 for SIRT, compared to € 75,725 for A+B. SIRT was associated with a lower number of SAE and a higher number of QALYs compared to A+B. Switching additionally 25% of the eligible patients (≈500) from systemic therapy to SIRT could generate annual savings of approximately € 22.6 million Euros to the SHI. Conclusion: SIRT was identified as dominant treatment strategy. SIRT use not only saves SHI expenditure compared to systemic immunotherapy but also yields extra QALYs. This positions SIRT as the dominant and more cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with HCC. The savings to the SHI system, derived from the BIA conducted, become increasingly significant with rising adoption rates of SIRT.

Robotic hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy: is it still more costly to perform?

To establish the economic value of simple robotic hysterectomy vs laparoscopic hysterectomy and assess the impact of surgeon's experience. Retrospective cohort study. University-affiliated US regional healthcare system. Reproductive and post-menopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. Robotic or laparoscopic hysterectomy. Between January 2018 and December 2019, a total of 985 simple laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies were performed by 47 different gynecologists. Overall, the mean payment, direct cost, and profit were comparable (p value > 0.05) among simple robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy. However, the mean operative time was significantly shorter for robotic hysterectomy compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (106 min vs 127 min, respectively, p < 0.05). Operative time decreased as a surgeon's annual robotic case volume increased. Per-minute profitability of robotic hysterectomy increased significantly when a surgeon performed greater than 45 cases annually (p = 0.04). This effect became most pronounced when a surgeon performed 60 or more cases per year (p = 0.01). Simple robotic hysterectomy has shorter operative time compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy, with direct costs being similar. Robotic hysterectomy has higher per-minute profit compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy when a surgeon performs > 45 cases per year.

Cost of ownership assessment for a da Vinci robot based on US real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Despite growth of robotic surgery, published literature lacks assessment of the cost of ownership (CoO) of a da Vinci robot by surgical service line and the associated benefit such data provides. METHODS: Based on real-world data (RWD) from 14 US hospitals and ≈6000 da Vinci robotic cases, CoO was assessed using all relevant fixed and variable cost components, calculated by surgical service line. RESULTS: At a representative hospital with an efficient robotic program (n = 424 cases), the weighted average fixed cost per case was $984. Weighted average variable cost per case was $8025 (range: $3325 for Cholecystectomy-multiport, to $16 986 for Rectal Resection). Assessing weighted average by case, main variable cost drivers were non-da Vinci supplies (49.5%), staff costs (28.6%), and da Vinci supplies (21.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Case mix, annual robotic case volumes, and cut-to-close/patient-in-room time by surgical service line represent core variables influencing robotic program CoO, which help drive profitable program management.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib in first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients in Hong Kong.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients. DESIGN. Indirect treatment comparison and a cost-effectiveness assessment. SETTING: Hong Kong. PATIENTS: Those having epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Erlotinib versus gefitinib use was compared on the basis of four relevant Asian phase-III randomised controlled trials: one for erlotinib (OPTIMAL) and three for gefitinib (IPASS; NEJGSG; WJTOG). The cost-effectiveness assessment model simulates the transition between the health states: progression-free survival, progression, and death over a lifetime horizon. The World Health Organization criterion (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <3 times of gross domestic product/capita:

Cost comparison of second-line treatment options for late stage non-small-cell lung cancer: cost analysis for Italy.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide (1.38 million cancer deaths, 18.2% of the total) and of cancer morbidity (1.61 million new cases, 12.7% of all new cancers). Currently only three second-line non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) pharmacotherapies are licensed in the European Union: the chemotherapies pemetrexed and docetaxel and the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib. These therapy alternatives have shown a comparable efficacy (survival benefit). In the past, cost comparisons showed that erlotinib was less costly compared to docetaxel, which in turn is cheaper than pemetrexed. Nowadays erlotinib (and docetaxel) are still less expensive than pemetrexed; but docetaxel lost patent protection (basic compound patent) at the end of 2010, so docetaxel drug costs have decreased rapidly and the question remains whether erlotinib is still the least costly therapy alternative in second-line NSCLC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Italy was selected for base case analysis to compare the total therapy costs, estimated by combining country-specific drug costs, administration costs, and adverse event costs of erlotinib and generic docetaxel in second-line NSCLC therapy. Sensitivity analyses on central input parameters have been performed. RESULTS: The total costs of treating one patient with erlotinib therapy of €5121 are lower than the docetaxel costs of €6699 for the Italian health care setting. Although the drug costs of erlotinib are higher than generic docetaxel (incremental €3770): the costs of intravenous chemotherapy administration (incremental -€4510), and the costs of adverse event therapy (incremental -€837) lead to higher total therapy costs for docetaxel compared to the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy erlotinib. CONCLUSION: The cost comparison findings for Italy show that erlotinib is still the less costly therapy alternative in second-line NSCLC. These results were robust to changes of central input parameters and robust to further potential price decreases for docetaxel.